Future-Kill (1985)

FUTURE-KILL! Holy crap, I revisited this one last night and was shocked at the disconnect between my childhood memories of it and reality. I thought it was cutting edge stuff at the time, but it is just awful. The setting is a futuristic Austin, TX (I assume, they never say) where a gang of painted up punks protest nuclear armament. A bunch of college frat guys head down to the ghetto to play a prank on them, but end up running into radiation-mutated Splatter (Edwin Neal, TCM's Hitchhiker). Splatter kills pacifist anti-nuke leader Eddie during a scuffle and blames it on the frat boys. After that, the film is THE WARRIORS with a $50 budget as they kids try to escape and get help from sympathetic punks including Dorothy Grim (Marilyn Burns). From 30-year-old frat guys to laughable punks, director Ronald Moore gets everything wrong. One would think the re-teaming of CHAINSAW stars Burns and Neal would lead to some interesting moments, but the film has none.

First, this is an 80's movie. Not because it was made in the 80's, it could have been made in the 70's. If it was the same movie, it would be an 80's movie because of the fashion and musical styles, as well as the low-budget, junk-food film-making technique. If you are looking for some cheesy (and at times gory) fun, and that iconic 80's style, this movie is a suitable trip. It's one part frat-boy-hijinks sex comedy (like Porky's?), and one part futuristic glam-punk post-apocalyptic survival movie (like Mad Max?).The plot is a total lift from the Warriors, a bunch of horny frat boys go to a bad section of town to kidnapped a glam-punk anti-nuclear weapons protester, and end up having to run for their lives when a not-so-nice glam-punk anti-nuclear weapons protester murders a good glam-punk anti-nuclear weapons protester and blames it on them. Will the frat boys learn what it is to be a glam-punk anti-nuclear weapons protester, and discover that there is more to life than being horny and in a fraternity? Like brotherhood? I will be the minority to say that this movie ended up a delightful treat despite it's hokey Giger cover (who is a fine artist, but I don't dig him that much) Recently released on DVD by Subversive Cinema, it comes with a mini poster, has an interview with one of the actors, and an audio-commentary. The picture and sound quality are pristine, and I assume added to my appreciation of the movie. I can understand seeing this on VHS and dismissing it as worthless junk, instead of enjoyable trash! PS, yes there is some topless nudity.

oh good grief...get over yourself...this is not that bad at all...when was the last time YOU tried something as difficult as making a film??...yeah..that's what I thought...I give it @ least a 6...have you ever seen WATERWORLD...or ISHTAR...or PEARL HARBOR????....right...and they cost MILLIONS...these kids did great stuff w/ about a buck and a dime...so back off monkey-boy and go back to your almost-worn-out Jenna Jameson collection...I thought the sequences where the frat boys are being chased were pretty creative and the lighting was very good when you know they didn't have enough money to get all those huge lights they use on the A films...and the punk sequences weren't bad either, considering this was shot in 1984!!! ...I thought a bunch of the punks were real people...you KNOW they didn't have enough money to put all those people in those cool costumes...so they must have brought them from home...

If you tried to make a bad film, you could not make one worst that this one. I can't imagine anyone paying good money to see trash like this in a theater. The thing that really gets you is being mesmerized in looking at the entire thing just for the amazement of seeing how lousy it could get. The redeeming facet of this film was seeing the words "The End"